Anyone else thing Mark Waid is the best comic writer in the business?

[jesse_custer]

I am assuming you mean that you prefer ASTRO CITY to WATCHMEN, and not that it is a superior work. I mean, not only is that an apples/oranges comparison, but you would have to posit a very compelling argument to not seem silly if you were saying the latter rather than the former.

I might actually prefer Watchmen to Astro City, as I've read the former way more times. But I do think Astro City is better, mainly because it manages to refute Watchmen's cynicism. Astro City finds good and bad in a superhero world, and it even explores topics like journalism with razor sharp insight. Watchmen was the more revolutionary book and more about comic mechanics, but Astro City seems to have more perspective about life. Perhaps what one finds better is ultimately preference given that distinction.

[Lord Bravery]

Waid also did a Deadpool mini series back in the early 90s that was great. First time the character was really explored and was written as more than just a wise cracking bad ass. Think Waid was the one who introduced Deadpool's insecurity about his looks and the self loathing aspect.

[Kid Omega]

I might actually prefer Watchmen to Astro City, as I've read the former way more times. But I do think Astro City is better, mainly because it manages to refute Watchmen's cynicism. Astro City finds good and bad in a superhero world, and it even explores topics like journalism with razor sharp insight. Watchmen was the more revolutionary book and more about comic mechanics, but Astro City seems to have more perspective about life. Perhaps what one finds better is ultimately preference given that distinction.

well, I think cynicism is a) very subjective and b) not really a ding in either direction. It's an observation about a work but not really a valid criticism. If a work is intended towards cynicism, for example, if it achieves that it is a successful work. Aside from that, it's an eye-of-the-beholder thing. I find Faulkner to be hugely cynical, but he's still one of the great american authors. Same with Melville. And Fitzgerald.

Beyond that, the first and foremost criteria for critiquing comics should be the synthesis of literature and art, and how well that synthesis tells a story. This is why PEANUTS and TERRY AND THE PIRATES are held up in the same breath- they are radically different, but both achieve a storytelling mastery where the illustration and the writing are perfectly combined, where one would hardly work without the other.

With that in mind, Astro City would have made a terrific novel. The art is great, but it was not so inherently tied to the narrative that it transcended itself, if that makes sense. WATCHMEN, drawn by anyone else, would lose something. It is two masters working at the top of their game to complement each other and make something more amazing than the sum of it's parts. The level of craft, every aspect of craft, on display in WATCHMEN is staggering. I would say it wasn't really matched until FROM HELL, FLEX MENTALLO, or the Fegredo/Mignola HELLBOYs in terms of two creators working together to create something completely transcendent.

All that said, ASTRO CITY is a very good, sentimental, nostalgic yarn, with some great ideas, nice art, and thoughtful spins on the concepts it's pastiching. But WATCHMEN is all that and much, much more... often all on the same page.

[whiteshark]

Mark Waid is at least one of the top 5 best writers of the comic book industry.
And one can say Waid is the best just due the consistent great stories that he have writen.

[jesse_custer]

well, I think cynicism is a) very subjective and b) not really a ding in either direction. It's an observation about a work but not really a valid criticism. If a work is intended towards cynicism, for example, if it achieves that it is a successful work. Aside from that, it's an eye-of-the-beholder thing. I find Faulkner to be hugely cynical, but he's still one of the great american authors. Same with Melville. And Fitzgerald.

Beyond that, the first and foremost criteria for critiquing comics should be the synthesis of literature and art, and how well that synthesis tells a story. This is why PEANUTS and TERRY AND THE PIRATES are held up in the same breath- they are radically different, but both achieve a storytelling mastery where the illustration and the writing are perfectly combined, where one would hardly work without the other.

With that in mind, Astro City would have made a terrific novel. The art is great, but it was not so inherently tied to the narrative that it transcended itself, if that makes sense. WATCHMEN, drawn by anyone else, would lose something. It is two masters working at the top of their game to complement each other and make something more amazing than the sum of it's parts. The level of craft, every aspect of craft, on display in WATCHMEN is staggering. I would say it wasn't really matched until FROM HELL, FLEX MENTALLO, or the Fegredo/Mignola HELLBOYs in terms of two creators working together to create something completely transcendent.

All that said, ASTRO CITY is a very good, sentimental, nostalgic yarn, with some great ideas, nice art, and thoughtful spins on the concepts it's pastiching. But WATCHMEN is all that and much, much more... often all on the same page.

Cynicism is more of an eye-of-the-beholder thing. Let's assume Watchmen can be described as such. Astro City presents scenarios that counter the well-done cynicism in Watchmen. The issue about a day in the life of Samaritan is a really good example of this. We see that being a superhero is tough and not glamorous, but Busiek comes at it from a workman's perspective. At the end of the day, Samaritan doesn't exactly get what he wants, but he's got a job to do. That story had an emotional impact on me because of obvious parallels with the human experience, but I also think it makes a great point that Watchmen couldn't allow itself to make. I realize I'm getting into sticky territory here, given that Watchmen has a purpose and fulfills that purpose, but Astro City not only fulfills its purpose but comes across as more mature than Watchmen. (Maturity, there's another eye-of-the-beholder thing.) That is, Astro City tailors points established by Watchmen.

I have to agree with you about Watchmen's art. It is certainly more transcendent, and this fact ties into what I said earlier about comic mechanics. But here's another decision we have to make: how much does technical brilliance count for? You say it should be the first criterion, but that in and of itself is a judgment call. Not a bad one, because I'm sure you can justify it. I put more emphasis on what a comic book says as a piece of art, both in a vacuum and compared to what other books say, if you know what I mean. Of course, I must admit that technical brilliance as the primary criterion brings up less eye-of-the-beholder potential. But I like the challenge and discussions that come along with what I said.

[FanboyStranger]

Mark Waid is at least one of the top 5 best writers of the comic book industry.
And one can say Waid is the best just due the consistent great stories that he have writen.

Eh, if you limit it to just superhero comics, you'd be able to make a strong case, I think, but overall, he's not top five.

[finfangfool]

You could do a heck of a lot worse.

[whiteshark]

Eh, if you limit it to just superhero comics, you'd be able to make a strong case, I think, but overall, he's not top five.

In the super hero comics i would say Mark Waid is one of the Top 3 writers of the comic book industry.

Over all, one could say that he is a strong contender to be in one of the Top 5 writers of comic books over all, due his consistent well stories from comics of many diferent comic book companies,being a winner of Eisner awards (Including the curent Eisner award given to the best ongoing title),and even writen new comic book storytelling mods from marvel as the Marvel Infinitive stories from the Avengers vs X-Men event.

[transvestitegod]

Perhaps he's a top writer when you narrow it down to English language superhero comics, but of all time, he's not even top 100.

Edit:

the first and foremost criteria for critiquing comics should be the synthesis of literature and art

I find it kind of disturbing you view comics definitively as the "synthesis of literature and art." It's like saying the first and foremost criteria for critiquing music should be the synthesis of lyric and instrument. Both scenarios, to me, come across as treating a traditional combination as essential, instead of novel. Literature is appreciated in comics, obviously, but it's not necessary, just like lyrics are obviously appreciated in music, but not necessary. I think, in both cases, the "words" should take a backseat to what actually defines the medium - visual and sound, respectively.

I have to agree with you about Watchmen's art. It is certainly more transcendent, and this fact ties into what I said earlier about comic mechanics. But here's another decision we have to make: how much does technical brilliance count for? ou say it should be the first criterion, but that in and of itself is a judgment call. Not a bad one, because I'm sure you can justify it. I put more emphasis on what a comic book says as a piece of art, both in a vacuum and compared to what other books say, if you know what I mean.

Everything. Without the "mechanics" what do you have, exactly? Your art can "say" something in as profound a way imaginable, but in the end, it's technical brilliance that pushes any art form forward.

[jesse_custer]

Everything. Without the "mechanics" what do you have, exactly? Your art can "say" something in as profound a way imaginable

Actually, that's not true. Your art can't say anything without mechanics. But analyzing the technicalities of an artform only takes you so far. How you say something (mechanics) is very important, indeed. But what you say is even more important. Take Griffith's The Birth of a Nation. How it says what it says is flatout amazing, but what it says is flatout wrong. As brilliant as that movie is from a standpoint of mechanics, it is a flawed piece of work because of the message and its effect on culture; that is, causing morons to attack and kill black people.

[Kid Omega]

Perhaps he's a top writer when you narrow it down to English language superhero comics, but of all time, he's not even top 100.

Edit:

I find it kind of disturbing you view comics definitively as the "synthesis of literature and art." It's like saying the first and foremost criteria for critiquing music should be the synthesis of lyric and instrument. Both scenarios, to me, come across as treating a traditional combination as essential, instead of novel. Literature is appreciated in comics, obviously, but it's not necessary, just like lyrics are obviously appreciated in music, but not necessary. I think, in both cases, the "words" should take a backseat to what actually defines the medium - visual and sound, respectively.

If a cartoonist is a great artist but a poor writer, you have a mediocre comic. How is that a "disturbing" idea?

[transvestitegod]

Actually, that's not true. Your art can't say anything without mechanics. But analyzing the technicalities of an artform only takes you so far. How you say something (mechanics) is very important, indeed. But what you say is even more important. Take Griffith's The Birth of a Nation. How it says what it says is flatout amazing, but what it says is flatout wrong. As brilliant as that movie is from a standpoint of mechanics, it is a flawed piece of work because of the message.

D.W. is widely recognized as one of the most influential directors of all time, because of his engineering the flashback and closeup. The subject of his films are ignored simply due to that technical innovation. This kind of proves my point.

[Kid Omega]

Actually, that's not true. Your art can't say anything without mechanics. But analyzing the technicalities of an artform only takes you so far. How you say something (mechanics) is very important, indeed. But what you say is even more important. Take Griffith's The Birth of a Nation. How it says what it says is flatout amazing, but what it says is flatout wrong. As brilliant as that movie is from a standpoint of mechanics, it is a flawed piece of work because of the message and its effect on culture; that is, causing people to hate black people.

I agree with you partially, but there is something to be said for the delivery of the message, despite the content. Leni Refenstahl Is a great artist, but was maybe an awful person.

I think it's impirtant ton divorce ourselves from our response to art sometimes in critique. A message can be repugnant, but if it's delivered effectively, that's a separate discussion. I think you were saying that, I guess I am saying that while horrible messages may disgust us, that's not a reflection of the craft, and is a different conversation.

[transvestitegod]

If a cartoonist is a great artist but a poor writer, you have a mediocre comic. How is that a "disturbing" idea?

What's disturbing is that you view comics as art and literature combined, when really, it's just art, and literature is a nice but unnecessary addition.

[Kid Omega]

D.W. is widely recognized as one of the most influential directors of all time, because of his engineering the flashback and closeup. The subject of his films are ignored simply due to that technical innovation. This kind of proves my point.

Jesse isnt trying to "disprove" a point, he's just discussing aspects of critique. It's an interesting conversation... No need to bring the gavel down like it's a RIGHT OR WRONG thing...